Holy Double Standards, Batman!

on Jan 21, 2005

It's not an apples to oranges comparison at all, the reason being that a woman's right to abortion without her husband's consent is based on the argument that it is HER BODY. Testicles, likewise, are a part of the man's body, last I checked.

32

kingbee

on Jan 21, 2005

Testicles, likewise, are a part of the man's body, last I checked

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true).

obviously the choice to have a vasectomy (which, btw, doesnt directly involve testicles; removing testicles is castration) should be reserved solely to the man who elects to have his vas cut. same goes for women who choose to have tubal ligation.

any man or woman who is in an existing relationship and chooses to have either a vasectomy or tubal ligation without consulting or against the wishes of his or her partner is likely putting that relationship at severe risk especially if the other person wishes to have children in the future. any person who's had the gender appropriate procedure prior to entering into a potentially serious relationship should make that known to his or her partner for obvious reasons.

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control.
absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children.

33

Dr Guy

on Jan 21, 2005

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control.
absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children.

But it sure doesn't help. Studies have shown that women who have abortions are twice as likely to miscarry as women who have not. Often, taht little tid bit is not told to the women before they get the procedure.

34

Gideon MacLeish

on Jan 21, 2005

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true).

Yeah. and those poor women mysteriously fell on a loaded phallus and were impregnated against their will, right?

Either it's a woman's body or it isn't. If it is not a woman's body, then the main thrust of the pro abortion lobby loses much of its punch, as the right to "choose" hinges greatly on it being part of the woman's body. If it IS part of her body, it remains an apt comparison.

35

kingbee

on Jan 21, 2005

as the right to "choose" hinges greatly on it being part of the woman's body

you ever hear of anyone shedding a natural born limb or other organ due to rh factor?

a woman has the right to choose not to carry a fetus inside her body.

36

Dr Guy

on Jan 21, 2005

you ever hear of anyone shedding a natural born limb or other organ due to rh factor?

Ever heard of a natural born limb having a baby?

37

drmiler

on Jan 21, 2005

Reply #35 By: kingbee - 1/21/2005 3:29:26 PM
as the right to "choose" hinges greatly on it being part of the woman's body

you ever hear of anyone shedding a natural born limb or other organ due to rh factor?

a woman has the right to choose not to carry a fetus inside her body.

If she doesn't want the fetus inside of her body, then she should have thought of that when she had unprotected sexual contact. Abortion is NOT for birth control. Everyone of you hollers "womans right to choice" Okay. Then have them start thinking about it BEFORE they have unprotected sex.

38

messybuu

on Jan 21, 2005

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true).

When you think about it, adult teeth are invasive, because children are not born with them.

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control.
absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children.

Doesn't abortion serve the same function as other birth control albeit reactively rather than proactively?

39

drmiler

on Jan 21, 2005

choosing to abort a fetus is not analogous to either operation. nor is it, by any sane standard, a form of birth control.
absent any complications, an abortion in no way precludes contributing to future children.

Doesn't abortion serve the same function as other birth control albeit reactively rather than proactively?

Nope. No form of birth control takes what is very close to being a fully functioning human and kills it.

40

Dr Guy

on Jan 21, 2005

Nope. No form of birth control takes what is very close to being a fully functioning human and kills it.

in some cases, a viable baby too. Even tho they spout about a womans rights to choose, and it is a zygote, the difference between some zygotes and a baby is 2 inches. PBAs.

41

ParaTed2k

on Jan 21, 2005

women arent born with children inside them. pregnancy is invasive (may sound weird but it's true).

True, women aren't born with children inside them, but the entire anatomy and phyiology of the female reproductive system is to enable conception and support development of a Zygote and Fetus. Throughout a woman's reproductive years, her reproductive system acts as if conception will happen, not as if it won't.

Each 28 day cycle the appropriate parts of her body prepare for the ferilization of an egg. The development of a Zygote and Fetus is not an interruption of the cycle, it is the entire purpose of it. This is not to say that it is the entire purpose of her, just the purpose of one system. Pregnancy is no more "invasive" to the female reproductive system as oxygen is to the circulatory system.

42

cactoblasta

on Jan 21, 2005

Even tho they spout about a womans rights to choose, and it is a zygote, the difference between some zygotes and a baby is 2 inches. PBAs.

Who is they? The evil corporation? The evil government? Those evil women?

You can talk about the sanctity of human life as much as you like, but a pregnant woman is still carrying a parasite that is fully capable of killing her and everyone she has ever known. If she and/or her partner doesn't raise it right there's no knowing what it could be capable of. That's a big responsibility, and personally I'd rather the incompetent abort rather than leaving the child to the cruelties of the adoption schemes and the harsh realities of foster parents.

43

Suspeckted

on Jan 21, 2005

Wow, interesting. I'm 23 and I've considered getting one. Imagine the complications I'd run into.

44

messybuu

on Jan 21, 2005

You can talk about the sanctity of human life as much as you like, but a pregnant woman is still carrying a parasite that is fully capable of killing her and everyone she has ever known. If she and/or her partner doesn't raise it right there's no knowing what it could be capable of. That's a big responsibility, and personally I'd rather the incompetent abort rather than leaving the child to the cruelties of the adoption schemes and the harsh realities of foster parents.

Interesting view of children.
However, when you think about it, the mother was a child once. That means she too is a parasite. In fact, since everybody is a parasite, anybody who supports the right of humans to exist is pro-parasite.

45

Dr Guy

on Jan 21, 2005

Who is they? The evil corporation? The evil government? Those evil women?

You can talk about the sanctity of human life as much as you like, but a pregnant woman is still carrying a parasite that is fully capable of killing her and everyone she has ever known. If she and/or her partner doesn't raise it right there's no knowing what it could be capable of. That's a big responsibility, and personally I'd rather the incompetent abort rather than leaving the child to the cruelties of the adoption schemes and the harsh realities of foster parents.

They is you. They are the ones that believe a baby is an evil parasite. They are the ones that believe a baby is not a baby until it walks and talks.